Draft in haste - I’m at New Statesman event, listening to the great and the good talk “defence”
For those attending - I was the guy in the corner typing away 🕵️♂️
1/25
The Royal Navy enters 2026 as a shadow of its former self. Once a global force with dozens of escorts, it now struggles with historic lows in hull numbers and availability. The discreet withdrawal of HMS Iron Duke – a Type 23 frigate that received over £100m in refit spending – leaves just five available frigates. This is not an isolated incident but the result of decades of mismanagement. This thread tries to give some context.
Historical Context: The Long Retreat
2/25
The decline accelerated with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review under Tony Blair’s government. The post-Cold War “peace dividend” saw the escort fleet shrink from around 35 vessels in the early 1990s. Subsequent SDSRs in 2010 and 2015 imposed further cuts, including premature retirement of Type 22 and Type 42 ships and capping Type 45 destroyers at six instead of twelve. No new frigates were ordered for over two decades, creating a procurement “valley of death”.
3/25
By 2026 the surface combatant force exists on paper as 13 vessels (6 Type 45s and 7 Type 23s), but real availability is far lower. Personnel numbers sit around 20,000 (excluding Royal Marines) while MoD civilians exceed 50,000. Chronic maintenance backlogs, optimistic strategic assumptions that major conflict was “10 years away”, and repeated programme delays have hollowed out capability. The attached table created and maintained by @TBrit90 illustrates this reality starkly.
The Frigate Crisis
4/25
The Type 23 frigates remain the RN’s primary anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms. All remaining vessels in service are (should be) equipped with the Type 2087 towed array sonar, making them critical for protecting the Continuous At-Sea Deterrent (CASD). Yet years of life-extension programmes have pushed many well beyond their original 18-year design life, at enormous cost.
5/25
HMS Iron Duke’s situation is particularly damning. Despite a £103 million refit intended to keep her operational into the late 2020s, she has been quietly stripped of systems and sidelined since late 2025 with no formal decommissioning announcement. This leaves the RN with effectively five available Type 23 frigates. Sustaining even routine tasking is now precarious.
6/25
A core role for these 2087-equipped Type 23s is Towed Array Patrol Ship (TAPS) duty in support of CASD. With only five frigates available – several already committed or in limited readiness – most of the operational force will be tied to deterrent protection. This leaves virtually no margin for carrier escort, forward presence in the Indo-Pacific, or other commitments.
7/25
The Type 45 destroyers fare little better. Power and propulsion issues continue to plague the class, with vessels such as HMS Daring (3,259 days), HMS Diamond (667 days), and HMS Defender (1,023 days) in extended refits or maintenance as shown in the table. Generating a credible Carrier Strike Group has become increasingly difficult. The important word here is “credible”.
Loss of Amphibious Capability
8/25
The complete decommissioning of the Albion-class LPDs without replacement marks the abandonment of a vital capability. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark were withdrawn in late 2025 despite heavy prior investment. HMS Bulwark alone received £72 million in refit work between 2022 and 2024, only to be sold for a fraction (circa £20m) of that sum. If the LPD’s were obsolete in a new A2AD environment where is the replacement?
9/25
This decision has left the UK without dedicated amphibious assault shipping capable of brigade-level operations. Remaining Bay-class vessels in the RFA cannot substitute. Britain’s ability to project power in littoral environments – essential for NATO’s northern flank or potential Indo-Pacific contingencies – has been severely degraded. No funded replacement programme exists, just aspirations and concepts.
Submarine Service Under Strain
10/25
The Astute-class SSNs have suffered construction delays, technical defects, and maintenance shortfalls. As of early 2026, availability remains “limited”, with several boats alongside for extended periods. HMS Anson’s deployment to Australia further reduced UK-based options. @TBrit90 table highlights prolonged refit periods for HMS Astute (308 days), HMS Audacious (1,129 days), and others listed as inactive - shambles is the word people should be looking for, over £6bn of capital assets left along side so the service could meet in year targets.
11/25
For the Vanguard-class SSBNs maintaining CASD, patrol durations have lengthened dramatically. A record 205-day patrol was completed in April 2026. Maintenance overruns have forced remaining boats to remain at sea longer, increasing crew fatigue and safety pressures. The deterrent is sustained only through the extraordinary efforts of submariners, not sustainable infrastructure. These lengthened patrols are that newsworthy now that the PM and Defence Secretary get their photo op in “personally thanking the crews”.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary in Crisis
12/25
The RFA, vital for sustaining RN operations at distance, faces its own severe problems. Industrial action in March and April 2026 over pay and conditions highlighted chronic under-manning (up to 70-80% on some vessels). The inability to reliably deploy a Solid Stores Support Ship alongside a Carrier Strike Group remains a critical vulnerability for long-endurance operations. This is something of the current governments own making - Al Carns should be sorting it out not taking selfies of himself in his home gym.
Procurement Delays and Capability Gaps
13/25
New platforms offer “hope” (not certainty) but arrive too late. Type 26 frigates (first-of-class HMS Glasgow) now target initial operating capability in 2028, with full fleet integration in the 2030s. Type 31s are promised by the end of the decade. This leaves a dangerous multi-year gap during which frigate numbers may dip even lower. The hybrid just hides the fact, the ships will be late.
14/25
Air capability faces parallel constraints. The F-35B fleet lacks full over-the-horizon offensive ground-attack integration (SPEAR 3 delays). Crowsnest airborne early warning, while deployed recently to Cyprus for counter-drone protection of RAF Akrotiri, is a small fleet with retirement planned for 2029. These gaps limit the effectiveness of Carrier Strike, if we can call it carrier strike and not just “carrier deployments”.
Shared Responsibility for Decline
15/25
Governments of both parties bear responsibility through sustained underfunding and short-term decisions. The MoD’s civilian bureaucracy has expanded while uniformed strength contracted. Procurement has often prioritised industrial or political considerations over operational need. Senior naval leadership has too often presented optimistic forecasts that failed to materialise (before getting promoted or moving on).
16/25 Recent decisions further erode trust. From June 2026, all new officer and rating training will centralise Initial Naval Training at HMS Raleigh, with a shortened course at Dartmouth. While presented as modernisation, this raises legitimate concerns about the future of the historic Britannia Royal Naval College site and a preference for economies over tradition.
17/25
The discreet handling of HMS Iron Duke’s withdrawal after £103m expenditure exemplifies opacity. Such actions suggest a service more focused on perception management than confronting difficult realities. Trust in leadership suffers when accountability appears absent. Isn’t this something 1SL said he was sorting out?
PR Exercises Versus Operational Reality
18/25
The RN highlights achievements such as CSG25 deployments, Wildcat operations, and Crowsnest Merlin deployments to Cyprus. Joint Expeditionary Force collaboration and talk of “hybrid navy” concepts are valuable. Yet these activities occur against constrained escort numbers, unreliable logistics, and limited air support. Mass and sustained presence are increasingly difficult to generate.
19/25
I’ve posted the colour-coded table again just to re-emphasise the scale of the challenge: green for short readiness, red for extended refits, dark tones for laid-up or retiring vessels. Only a handful of ships show meaningful availability. Claims of “seven frigates in service” at the start of 2026 do not match operational reality. It’s government and RN “waffle”, a sleight of hand to hide decay and decline.
20/25
All the remaining Type 23 frigates are 2087 sonar-equipped ASW platforms, underscoring their irreplaceable role in CASD protection. With numbers so low, the fleet is stretched to breaking point across competing demands. Stand by to see the OPV fleet be further stretched to fill the gaps then listen to hear how that in itself is a “success” of fleet management.
21/25
The pattern is clear: heavy investment in platforms (Iron Duke, Bulwark) followed by premature withdrawal. Complete capabilities (amphibious warfare) have been decommissioned without replacement. Maintenance infrastructure deficits affect both surface ships and submarines. Makes you wonder what the strategy is, or if there is one?
22/25
RFA industrial action and crewing shortages compound the problem. Carrier operations without reliable solid stores support are inherently limited in reach and endurance. With PoW deploying north soon, what exactly is it going to deploy with?
23/25
New ships are coming, but timelines stretch into the late 2020s and 2030s. In the interim, the RN must manage with what it has – and what it has is insufficient for the tasks assigned. It’s not great.
24/25
This is a service managed into ineffectiveness by the very people charged with its leadership: ministers, MoD officials, and senior officers. When responsibility is discussed, fingers point elsewhere. The discreet Iron Duke episode and training changes only deepen scepticism.
Conclusion
25/25
The Royal Navy’s trajectory since the late 1990s is one of sustained decline. From frigate shortages to lost amphibious capability, from record submarine patrols to logistics crises, the evidence is unambiguous. While the service attempts to highlight what it can still do, it is no longer effective at the scale and sustained level required. Someone must take responsibility.
This author will not hold his breath.
Corbett, Fisher et al would have been shocked how an island nation built on international trade and protection of sea lanes and the high sea has fallen.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Deception Gambits: Analysing Political Deflection in the Mandelson DV Scandal
Views my own, corrections and comments welcome. For those who read my threads you’ll know I like to pull out the gambits.
1/25 This thread attempts to demonstrate a detailed examination of the “Deception Gambits” framework – a structured taxonomy of psychological and strategic techniques drawn from cognitive psychology, influence research and strategic communication.
Organised into six categories (Attention, Perception, Sensemaking, Expectations, Emotion and Behaviour), each containing five specific gambits, the model reveals how information can be shaped, obscured or redirected. I am applying it directly to the current controversy surrounding Lord Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the British Ambassador to the United States and the Developed Vetting (DV) failure that has engulfed No 10 and current Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.
The Deception Gambits Framework – An Overview
2/25 The framework treats deception not as crude lying but as a sophisticated orchestration of human cognition and behaviour. It draws on decades of research into how the mind processes information under pressure. Each gambit operates independently or in concert, allowing communicators to manage scrutiny without overt falsehoods.
In high-stakes political environments such as the Mandelson affair, these tactics appear with striking coherence, turning potential accountability into managed narrative control. This thread will attempt to examine each category in depth before turning to their observable application (I may have a background in this subject).
Context: The Mandelson DV Scandal
3/25 At the heart of the controversy are revelations that Lord Peter Mandelson failed rigorous Developed Vetting (DV) security clearance checks in January 2025 (see my previous threads about UKSV DV process). Despite this, it seems the Foreign Office overruled the decision and proceeded with his appointment as Ambassador to the United States. Further Epstein-related disclosures later emerged, leading to his sacking. No 10 has repeatedly insisted that neither the PM nor any minister was aware of the failure until this week, framing the episode as an administrative oversight rather than ministerial responsibility.
This thread demonstrates how the full suite of deception gambits has been deployed to deflect sustained parliamentary and public scrutiny.
The United Kingdom’s Defence Dilemma: Rhetoric versus Reality
Views my own, comments and corrections welcome.
1/25 The UK wants to punch above its weight on the world stage – carrier strike groups, AUKUS, NATO leadership – yet its armed forces are hollowed out by uncertain funding, no published Defence Investment Plan, persistent Treasury resistance, and ministers who prioritise welfare, Net Zero and European integration. Today (14th April 2026) the picture is stark. This thread attempts to describe it, service by service, using the latest fleet data (@TBrit90 @ArmchairAdml ) and various public statements.
2/25 At the heart of the problem is money. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review promised a pathway to 3 % of GDP by 2035, yet the ten-year Defence Investment Plan is still missing seven months later. Industry is “bleeding cash”. Parliamentary committees have been promised publication dates that never arrive.
Rumours of in-year cuts swirl.
The Treasury’s reluctance is not new, but it is now sharpened by open ministerial choices.
3/25 Current Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has already had her aid budget cut to fund what she calls “the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War”. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s Net Zero agenda continues to command resources and political capital. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s focus on domestic security and welfare aligns squarely with Labour’s core vote.
Every year the Whitehall bidding round repeats the same inter-departmental tension: defence rarely wins.
The Ajax Armoured Vehicle Scandal: Accepted Deficiencies, Blame-Shifting, and Why the MoD Still Won’t Let Go
Views my own, corrections and comments welcome
AJAX Update
1/25 The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle was meant to transform the British Army’s reconnaissance capability. Instead, it has delivered delays, billions in costs, and documented harm to soldiers.
These problems are not speculation (as some still try and state) they have been officially accepted by the UK Government, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), and the British Army itself. Yet elements within General Dynamics, DE&S, and the Army continue to push the vehicle forward. Even after Luke Pollard withdrew Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in January 2026, support contracts remain live. This 25-post thread attempts to lay out the facts, using all publicly available sources I can find.
For the troops who must crew these vehicles (the user) and for the British taxpayer, the truth matters (or it should).
Background: What Ajax Was Supposed to Deliver
2/25 Awarded in 2010 to General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLS-UK) under a £5.5 billion firm-price contract, Ajax was to provide 589 vehicles in six variants. It promised a modern, digitised, medium-weight platform to replace the ageing CVR(T) fleet — complete with a 40 mm cannon, advanced sensors, and networked warfare capability. The British Army was told it would be world-leading. Fifteen years later, the programme is a textbook case of procurement failure. But the most serious issue is not delay or cost — it is the harm caused to soldiers. And that harm has been formally acknowledged at the highest levels.
The Core Issue: Noise and Vibration That Makes Soldiers Ill
3/25 The principal failing is excessive noise and vibration (N&V). Crews have suffered nausea, vomiting, shaking, swollen joints, tinnitus, and hearing loss. These are not isolated complaints. Trials in 2020–2021 were suspended after soldiers needed long-term medical monitoring. The problems returned dramatically in November 2025, just weeks after IOC was declared. On Exercise Titan Storm on Salisbury Plain, around 30–35 personnel across multiple vehicles reported symptoms so severe that the Army paused all use “out of an abundance of caution.” The Defence Accident Investigation Board and Army Safety Investigation Team were immediately involved. A ministerial review followed.
The Challenges Facing the UK Government in Implementing the Strategic Defence Review and Defence Industrial Plan
Comments and corrections welcome, views my own.
1/25 The United Kingdom’s defence policy has long been characterised by a tension between ambitious strategic goals and the practical constraints of funding and implementation. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) of 2025, published in June of that year, represented a significant attempt to address emerging threats in an era of heightened geopolitical instability. Led externally by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Sir Richard Barrons, and Dr Fiona Hill, the SDR outlined 62 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the government, aiming to enhance warfighting readiness and position the UK as a leading NATO contributor. Complementing this was the anticipated Defence Industrial Plan (DIP), intended to translate these strategic ambitions into concrete procurement and investment frameworks. However, as of this month (February 2026), the UK government continues to grapple with substantial challenges in realising these initiatives. These include funding shortfalls, internal military discord, delays in policy execution, and broader political repercussions. This thread attempts to examine these issues, drawing on recent analyses and events—including insights from the Munich Security Conference 2026 and Tim Shipman’s latest article in @spectator —to highlight the political fallout from the SDR, the persistent funding gaps, inter-service rivalries, the ongoing DIP delays, and the enduring gap between ambition and reality in UK defence policy. Ultimately, I try and argue that these challenges not only undermine domestic credibility but also strain alliances with Europe and the United States.
Background on the SDR
2/25 The SDR emerged amid a backdrop of escalating global threats, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and tensions in the Indo-Pacific. It called for a “new era for UK Defence,” emphasising urgent modernisation, increased spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and an ambition for 3% thereafter, subject to economic conditions.
3/25 The review advocated for investments in munitions, digital integration, and workforce reforms to achieve “war-readiness,” including £7 billion for military accommodation (the cost of buying back the married quarters) and £1.5 billion for munitions production.
The Troubled Odyssey of the GDLS AJAX Programme: A Chronicle of Procurement Failures
Views my own, corrections welcome.
1/25
In the annals of British defence procurement, few sagas rival the protracted and scandal-ridden journey of the AJAX armoured vehicle programme (but E-7 seems to be giving it a good run for its money). Conceived as a cornerstone of the British Army’s modernisation efforts, AJAX promised to deliver a family of cutting-edge platforms capable of revolutionising reconnaissance and combat operations in an era of networked warfare. Rooted in the late 1990s’ Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) initiative, it evolved into a £5.5 billion contract awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLS-UK) in 2010 for 589 vehicles across six variants: the reconnaissance-focused AJAX, the ARES personnel carrier, the ATHENA command vehicle, the ARGUS engineer reconnaissance variant, the ATLAS recovery vehicle, and the APOLLO repair platform.
These vehicles were envisioned as digitally integrated marvels, boasting superior mobility, sensor fusion, and data-sharing capabilities to align with the Army’s multi-domain operations doctrine. Yet, what began as a beacon of innovation has devolved into a quagmire of missed milestones, manufacturing blunders, health and safety catastrophes, and institutional intransigence. Drawing on exhaustive reports like the Sheldon Review (2023), the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review (2021), parliamentary evidence sessions, whistleblower testimonies, and the latest update from Defence Secretary Luke Pollard on the 22nd January 2026, this thread attempts to unravel the programme’s timeline. It exposes how commercial pressures from GDLS-UK and the Army’s unyielding push for capability have consistently trumped the welfare of service personnel. Special emphasis is placed on the pivotal role of the Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) report, which laid bare the severe noise and vibration risks, with direct quotes (just to remind everyone) underscoring the gravity of these failures. As I go deeper into this narrative, the evidence paints a damning picture of systemic failures that have allowed AJAX to limp forward, at great human and financial cost.
Origins and Contract Award: Seeds of Controversy (Late 1990s–2010)
2/25
The AJAX story traces its roots to the post-Cold War era, when the British Army sought to replace its ageing Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) fleet with something more agile and technologically advanced. Initiatives like the Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) and FRES laid the groundwork, but by 2010, the MoD opted for GDLS-UK’s ASCOD-based design over rivals such as BAE Systems’ CV90. This choice was not without debate: critics argued that selecting an unproven adaptation of the ASCOD—primarily to diversify suppliers and avoid a BAE monopoly—introduced unnecessary risks. The contract emphasised assembly in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, touting economic benefits like job creation, but it also locked in a firm-priced structure where GDLS-UK shouldered cost overruns, potentially incentivising shortcuts.
Initial projections were optimistic: an in-service date around 2017, with vehicles enhancing NATO interoperability and addressing capability gaps exposed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the bespoke modifications—over 1,200 unique requirements—transformed ASCOD into a complex, heavy, custom beast, setting the stage for future woes.
Early Manufacturing and Timeline Slippages (2010–2014)
3/25 From the outset, production decisions sowed discord. The first 100 hulls were fabricated in Spain by GDLS-UK’s parent company, sparking concerns over quality assurance and supply chain vulnerabilities. Inconsistencies in welding and hull tolerances emerged early, issues that would later manifest as debilitating vibrations. By 2014, the MoD formalised the £3.5 billion manufacture phase, aiming for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in July 2020—a squadron deployable with full support.
Yet, the programme’s timeline had already ballooned by three years, a harbinger of deeper problems. The overlap between demonstration and manufacturing phases, intended to be brief, stretched perilously, amplifying risks as prototypes informed production without full validation. These early slippages reflected an underestimation of the engineering challenges in adapting a foreign platform to (1200+ extra) British specifications.
Views my own, corrections and comments welcome - it’s about the debate.
1/25 The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has long prided itself on maintaining a capable armoured force, with the Challenger series of main battle tanks (MBTs) serving as the backbone of its heavy armour since the 1980s. The transition from the Challenger 2 to the Challenger 3 represents a critical upgrade programme aimed at extending the life of these vehicles into the 2040s. However, this endeavour has been beset by a myriad of challenges, ranging from technical hurdles such as weight management and turret integration to logistical issues like component shortages and the reactivation of stored vehicles. These problems are not isolated; they reflect broader systemic difficulties within the British Army’s armoured vehicle procurement, as evidenced by the troubled Ajax programme. In this thread, I’ll attempt to examine these challenges in detail, drawing on official reports, defence analyses, and comparative insights from other nations such as Germany and Poland. I’ll argue that while the decision to upgrade existing Challenger 2 hulls rather than procure new platforms may have seemed cost-effective, it risks leaving the UK with an outdated and insufficiently modernised fleet, potentially compromising its strategic posture in an era of renewed great-power competition.
By comparing the UK’s approach to those of its NATO allies, this analysis highlights why the upgrade path may have been a suboptimal choice, perpetuating vulnerabilities in an increasingly contested global security environment.
Background on the Challenger 2
2/25 The Challenger 2, introduced in 1998, has been a stalwart of the British Army, renowned for its robust Dorchester armour and combat-proven reliability, including in operations in Iraq. By the 2010s, obsolescence concerns prompted the MoD to initiate the Life Extension Programme, which evolved into the Challenger 3 upgrade.
The Challenger 3 Upgrade Contract
3/25 This upgrade is under a £800 million contract awarded to Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) in 2021. It involves refurbishing 148 Challenger 2 hulls with a new turret featuring a smoothbore 120mm L55A1 gun, advanced Trophy active protection system (APS), and enhanced digital systems.